Star Trek Into Darkness (May 2013) [Archive]

Captain Untouchable

Sep 11th, 2012, 04:28:49 PM

Most posters for a scifi franchise movie include the name of the franchise, often in a distinctive, recognisable font that is unique to that franchise. Star Trek and Star Wars have been doing it for decades, but take a look at the Marvel Phase 2 posters, or Michael Bay's Transformers, and you'll see the same thing is going on. Fonts are a very powerful tool in product recognition: when you see something written in the Coca-Cola font, you don't need to know the words for your brain to conjure up the Coca-Cola connection. Movie studios are tapping into that power.

If you write "Star Trek Into Darkness" on a poster, all on the same line, you confuse that issue. You have to start reading words to know what's going on, and that dilutes the marketing power. Unless the marketing team is stupid, they'll end up splitting the title across two lines anyway, in order to preserve the brand recognition power of the "Star Trek" name.

Because of that, the posters are probably going to make people percieve the title as "Star Trek: Into Darkness", regardless of how Paramount punctuates it in their press releases.

At least, that's what we learned when I did my Graphics GCSE. :uhoh

Droo

Sep 11th, 2012, 05:40:56 PM

Yeah, I see that happening with the poster, too. And I agree with you on the public's consequent perception of the title. Therefore, I propose an alternate, and superior, title.

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Colon Rebellion

And now we're boldly going into the shady realm of gastrointestinal euphamism, which is rather fitting, giving the ghastly new title and all.

Rutabaga

Sep 11th, 2012, 08:11:55 PM

I'm just waiting to see Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. :love

Karl Urban supposedly let a spoiler slip a few weeks ago when he made reference to the villain being Gary Mitchell from Where No Man Has Gone Before, but that's been backtracked to a great extent, I guess. The Khan speculation has been going around for months, it seemed to gain a lot of steam when Benicio del Toro was in the running for the bad guy, but that's fallen by the wayside. So in some ways, they've managed to keep the ID of the bad guy under wraps.

Lilaena De'Ville

Sep 19th, 2012, 09:08:20 PM

I just rewatched Star Trek 2009 and all the extras and it was amazing the lengths they went to to keep things secret from the public!

I dont care about the title, I'm excited for the film. :eee

Atreyu

Dec 3rd, 2012, 05:45:43 PM

First poster revealed (featuring Benedict Cumberbatch) - looks very The Dark Knight-esque:

http://i1.cdnds.net/12/49/618x914/star-trek-into-darkness-first-poster.jpg

Halajiin Rabeak

Dec 4th, 2012, 08:52:32 AM

Oh dear...

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/12/3/N7UCN44RfU-vJXQUrA_ixg2.jpg

Crusader

Dec 4th, 2012, 09:04:16 AM

Thanks for sharing this :D

Movie Posters these days look like the last frame of an establishing shot in a video game :p

Korax

Dec 4th, 2012, 09:23:17 AM

Lilaena De'Ville

Dec 4th, 2012, 01:21:48 PM

I love comparing movie posters and seeing the trends. And how horribly they rip off from each other, lol!

...I still think it's a cool poster though. >_>

Ceto Rübezahl

Dec 4th, 2012, 02:04:58 PM

I don't get why the internet is making such a big fuss over this. Pretty much every news blog seems to have an article ranting about the blatant rip-off. Thing is, the whole "lets make the environment look like the logo!" idea was cooked up a long time before The Dark Knight Rises did it. Aside from there are some buildings, and the pattern of light and dark makes the movie logo, the posters have very little else in common.

By the internet's logic, both posters are also "exactly the same" as this (http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2011/12/b819cf3b9b926425b3225a4d6b8404c3.jpg) Amazing Spider-Man poster: that uses light and shadow to make the movie's logo, too. And by extension, that Spider-Man poster is "exactly the same" as this (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/193672~Star-Wars-Episode-I-The-Phantom-Menace-Posters.jpg) piece of Phantom Menace marketing from fourteen years ago. In the United Kingdom, Channel 4 has these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CVdllN67OQ) idents where the camera angle makes objects line up and make the channel's logo. I'm sure someone with a less patchy memory than me could find dozens of other examples, too.

The internet baffles me, sometimes. I could probably hand out free money, and someone somewhere would get internet cranky about it. :grumble

Lilaena De'Ville

Dec 4th, 2012, 02:11:51 PM

To be fair this isn't the most egregious or blatant rip off of a poster I've seen. Sometimes posters for different movies have the same bodies in them and only the faces are switched.

There are very few original ideas left, and I think the Star Trek poster is fine. Like I said, I still like it, even if the "single figure with back to camera facing industrial looking something or other/perhaps in the shape of its logo" has been done before.

Halajiin Rabeak

Dec 4th, 2012, 03:05:20 PM

For the best example ever of "Let's make the background look like the logo!," just go back to Will Eisner's old comics of The Spirit.

Atreyu

Dec 6th, 2012, 05:25:14 AM

Teaser trailer now out:

diP-o_JxysA

:eek

PS. Don't forget - he's voicing Smaug too.

Kyran O'Hurn

Dec 6th, 2012, 07:01:40 AM

kinda looks like they are going to keep with the tradition of destroying each version of the Enterprise every movie or two... :p

Looking forward to it myself.

Rutabaga

Dec 6th, 2012, 08:02:55 AM

OMG.

That is all.

:eee :dance :ohno :) :D :love

Captain Untouchable

Dec 6th, 2012, 10:05:53 AM

Hot damn, this is starting to look amazeballs. :ohno

Annoyingly, JJ Abrams seems to be using his Lost powers, as far as working out who the villain is. The blonde in the blue uniform (Alice Eve (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1404408/)?) is a pretty good likeness for Elizabeth Dehner (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Dehner) which suggests Gary Mitchell; but the returning / revenge notion seems more Khan.

Just tell us, damn you! :shakefist

Lilaena De'Ville

Dec 6th, 2012, 02:07:32 PM

I like surprises. :colbert

Love the teaser! Can't wait until next Saturday for the nine minute preview in front of the Hobbit. :eee

Dragon

Dec 6th, 2012, 02:50:21 PM

He doesn't look anything like Khan, in my opinion. Khan is supposed to be a Sikh, and while Ricardo Montalban didn't exactly look Indian, he was clearly meant to look exotic to an American audience. I notice Cumberbatch is wearing a Starfleet uniform in a few shots (untorn). Also, he seems to be demonstrating some clearly superhuman abilities in terms of jumping and swinging heavy objects.

Gary Mitchell seems like a strong possibility. Perhaps, since Kirk's journey to the Enterprise was delayed in this timeline, Mitchell broke the galactic boundary under Pike's command, and under Pike's orders he was stranded in deep space instead of killed? In the original episode, Mitchell was definitely working on a god complex. That could explain the revenge on Federation society angle.

Spoilered speculation above with details from the original episode!

Lilaena De'Ville

Dec 6th, 2012, 02:51:39 PM

Can we spoil the Gary Mitchell speculation or am I just being a spoiler baby? I don't know anything about a Gary Mitchell and if he's in the movie I'd like to keep my ignorance :)

Dragon

Dec 6th, 2012, 04:33:26 PM

So, I've just been alerted to the fact that the Japanese version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHlQUXFzfw) of the trailer contains some extra footage. Including something that may or may not be a huge spoiler. Watch at your own risk...

Read only after watching: My prediction: Kirk is the one on the wrong side of the glass this time.

Rutabaga

Dec 6th, 2012, 06:25:00 PM

I saw the Japanese trailer as well, and it does put a different spin on things.

I'm really leaning toward the Gary Mitchell angle, which would mean that Karl Urban really did let the cat out of the bag a few months ago. But that one image in the Japanese trailer, with the hands on either side of the glass, really does evoke Khan. I love a mystery!

I have the original series on disc, so I've really got to pull out Where No Man Has Gone Before and watch it again. Using it as the basis for the sequel would make a lot of sense since the episode is so well known as the second pilot for the TV series.

Captain Untouchable

Dec 6th, 2012, 08:40:14 PM

Someone pitched an interesting theory at me earlier. The scenes with Kirk in his dress uniform seem to be very solemn and somber; and since the background isn't in ruins or anything, he suggests that they're at the beginning of the movie, and that we're watching Gary Mitchell's funeral. Mitchell, he theorises, would have been "presumed dead" as a result of Kirk's actions: this explains the glimpse we see of Kirk in his dress uniform looking very burdened, and seeming to be talking to Christopher Pike (or at least, someone who has the same sideburns as Pike). Mitchell is a friend: getting a friend killed fits with some of the stuff Chris Pine has mentioned about the burdens of command that Kirk is now contending with.

However, Gary Mitchell obviously wouldn't have died: his war against Earth might not just be a god complex thing, but also a more personal desire for revenge against Kirk. Having someone attack one of the Federation's homeworlds as part of a quest for revenge seems quite similar to the motivations of the first movie's villain: giving him a personal beef with Kirk would echo that.

Another suggestion for who the villain might be is Garth of Izar. Like Mitchell he's a former Starfleet officer; like Khan he has a flair for genocide; and like both he's a wee bit crazy. While there are all manner of clues that it's either Mitchell or Khan, it's entirely possible that Abrams is screwing with all of them. The Garth of Izar episode potentially has a lot of fuel for the Kirk/Spock bromance angle that began in the first movie: It involves Spock having to tell Kirk apart from an identical imposter, which proves how well he knows the Captain.

The episode also includes Marta, an Orion: and I'm all for the inclusion of sexy green-skinned alien dancer ladies.

Captain Untouchable

Dec 10th, 2012, 09:47:53 PM

A few reveals / spoilers / possible red herrings came out today:

A press photo refers to Benedict Cumberbatch's character as John Harrison. "Harrison" is the name of a random background character from the TV series who didn't really do anything particularly important. Either this is a fake name to throw the fans off the scent, or the villain is an original creation and they were just screwing with us with all the clues up until now.

Meanwhile, it was supposedly revealed at a press event that Alice Eve is playing Carol Marcus - the mother of Kirk's son, David. Why she would be in a Starfleet uniform is a little confusing (she was a civilian in Wrath of Khan). However, if this is true, it would seem to cast doubt on the Gary Mitchell idea: Alice Eve playing a female character from that story was a big selling point on the idea. It's making me even more sceptical about it being Khan, too.

The planet with the red plants is called Nibiru. All of the shots featuring the volcano, the Enterprise underwater, the crew out of uniform, and Cumberbatch rappelling from the ceiling seems to be part of that first sequence, which is an away mission to stop a planet blowing up.

Some press places are suggesting that the seemingly iconic shot of Spock and Kirk touching hands through the glass isn't what we thought: they suggest that it's Cumberbatch's hand, not Kirks. Reading between the lines, it is beginning to sound like Kirk makes a decision that leads to Cumberbatch's "death" (or something) during that first mission, and that's who the memorial from the trailer was about.

Rutabaga

Dec 11th, 2012, 09:53:40 AM

I have to admit I was wondering if the character Alice Eve is playing is Carol Marcus...it was actually my first thought when I saw her in the trailer, because of the looks exchanged between her and Kirk.

I was also wondering if that iconic shot in the Japanese trailer was a red herring...they're so skilled at throwing us off track at points in order to keep us guessing, I wouldn't put anything past them. Even if it is a red herring, though, it still succeeds in being extraordinarily evocative and hitting all of us fans right in the feels.

Dragon

Dec 12th, 2012, 05:22:22 PM

Watching "Where No Man Has Gone Before" on DVD, and there was an interesting exchange between Mitchell and Kirk...

MITCHELL: The first thing I ever heard from upperclassmen was, Watch out for Lieutenant Kirk. In his class, you either think or sink.
KIRK: I wasn't that bad, was I?
MITCHELL: If I hadn't aimed that little blonde lab technician at you...
KIRK: You what? You planned that?
MITCHELL: Well, you wanted me to think, didn't you? I outlined her whole campaign for her.
KIRK: I almost married her!
MITCHELL: You better be good to me. I'm getting even better ideas here.

Little blonde scientist Kirk almost married, eh?

Actually, I doubt they dug that deep, but I found the idea amusing. :)

Captain Untouchable

Dec 12th, 2012, 07:32:40 PM

I've been speculating along similar lines too. There are a lot of super-subtle in jokes and references that Abrams seeded into the Star Trek movies that suggest that he actually does dig that deep. He certainly puts a lot of work into researching his source material.

That said, there's a mixed bag of factoids for and against.

In the original timeline Kirk graduated from the Academy in 2254. In the alternate timeline, Kirk starts at the Academy in 2255. The maths means that Mitchell would have started at the Academy in 2253 or 2254: which makes it unlikely that Kirk was his instructor in the alternate timeline. Further, "Where No Man Has Gone Before" takes place in 2265: giving Mitchell and Kirk a full decade to become "friends". However, New Kirk's Academy attendance (2255-2258) does overlap with Mitchell's academy attendance (2253/4-2257/8), so it's entirely possible that Kirk and Mitchell were friends and classmates at the Academy, rather than having the instructor/cadet relationship.

According to "proper" Star Trek canon, David Marcus was born in about 2261. Since the first Abrams movie happened in 2258, and since Into Darkness happens within a year or two of that, it's extremely plausible that Into Darkness happens at around the same time that the baby-making occurs.

Based on our maths so far, Kirk was introduced to the "blonde lab technician" (lets call her BLT) in around 2253/2254. Fans have been speculating that BLT is Carol Marcus since the eighties (when Wrath of Khan came out), but there are a at least two of other blondes that we know Kirk dated during that period. Ruth (link (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ruth)) was the fantasy/memory that the planet in "Shore Leave" conjured up for Kirk: she was clearly important to him, and they dated during his Academy years. The other fan speculation is Janet Wallace (link (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Janet_Wallace)), who Kirk dated in 2261 and is definitely a doctor/scientist. Interestingly, Janet Wallace was in the original draft for Wrath of Khan, before being replaced by Carol Marcus in later drafts.

Unless Kirk is a two-timing bastard (possible), Janet Wallace was probably Kirk's post-Carol Marcus rebound. BLT is probably Ruth, since she's the one that the Shore Leave planet conjured up: but my inner romantic likes the idea that Kirk dated Carol Marcus for going on eight years, and that he's a man whore in later life because he lost his "one true love".

Damn it. Now I'm craving bacon.

If you're looking into the various references and what not, you may find that the way that Starfleet Academy and Starfleet ranks are handled in this era is damned weird. In one snippet of backstory, Kirk served on a mission as an Ensign during his Academy tour; a classmate served as a Lieutenant on the same mission. Also, the Mitchell backstory identifies Kirk as a Lieutenant while still at the Academy. There are a bunch of other examples from the show; and the movie seems to echo it too, with the way that all the Cadets pull on uniforms and seem to have different ranks.

My best guess is that, while everyone at the Academy is a Cadet, they're also all officers already. Not only does this fit with the show's depiction of things (Kirk is referred to as an Ensign and a Lieutenant during Academy parts of his backstory), but it also helps the Star Trek movie make more sense: when everyone ran off to crew the various ships, they already knew what their ranks were / would be, which is why they magically seemed to have the appropriate uniforms.

It's also consistent with the ranks given - being seventeen, Chekov would only have been at the Academy for a year or so, hence being an Ensign; whereas Uhura had been there for three years, and was a Lieutenant. Doctors in the military often enter at a higher rank than other officers, hence McCoy being a Lieutenant Commander; Scotty meanwhile had already graduated, hence him being a Lieutenant Commander as well. Since Kirk was doing command training (taking the Kobayashi Maru, etc), one could probably guess that his rank at the time was Lieutenant Commander, hence him being a logical choice for First Officer. That assumption also helps explain Pike's claim that Kirk could "graduate in four; have your own ship in eight": four years making him a Lieutenant Commander, and then promotions to Commander and then Captain over the following four years. It also means that he went from Lieutenant Commander to Captain (skipping one rank) at the end of the movie rather than going from Cadet to Captain (skipping five).

Not that you needed to know that... it just makes hunting through Star Trek lore for clues a little easier to fathom.

Nen Lev'i

Dec 15th, 2012, 11:44:36 AM

ROi0V-tzd0I

Hey, look! There's a... new... trailer? :cyduck

Captain Untouchable

Dec 17th, 2012, 10:55:40 PM

Okay, so there actually is a new trailer! :ohno

wPUOM3-UON0

It looks like Chekov really is wearing a red shirt in this. That adds a certain degree of weight to the idea that Cumberbatch is John Harrison or Gary Mitchell - both of those characters are helm / navigator type people; it stands to reason that Chekov's uniform has changed because he's been assigned somewhere else, making room for Cumberbatch's character to sit in his chair on the bridge.

Rutabaga

Feb 4th, 2013, 08:07:58 PM

Here's the Super Bowl spot:

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Mu07BaOx9c?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Mu07BaOx9c?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

*kermit flail x 10 billion*

Captain Untouchable

Feb 4th, 2013, 11:46:13 PM

Having now seen Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch as a villain is making a lot more sense to me right now. If he can pull off the same kind of intelligence and charisma that he channelled as Mr Holmes but can nudge it over the edge into villainy, we're in for one hell of a movie.

Something doesn't feel right about Chris Pine in the yellow shirt, though. I think it's because the yellow is too bright: it doesn't match the more muted shades of the red and blue uniform, and it winds up making it look like Kirk's uniform is too "clean" and noobish. Chris Pine had loads of swagger that made him stand out in the first movie, but in the shots of Kirk and Spock visiting Harrison in the brig, Kirk seems more like a rookie than a Captain.

Hopefully he'll spend most of the movie wearing something else. Maybe we'll even get the obligatory "Kirk's shirt gets torn off while fighting" scene that the first movie was sadly lacking.

Droo

Mar 7th, 2013, 03:39:11 PM

You know how I hate to brag, but... I love to brag (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/24734/star-trek-into-darkness-uk-release-moved-forward)!

One week early for the Land of Tea and Crumpets! :D

Rutabaga

Mar 7th, 2013, 06:53:29 PM

This means I'll have to spend a week on all my social media sites sticking my fingers in my ears and going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. :lol

Captain Untouchable

Mar 7th, 2013, 06:59:09 PM

In your face, Amurrikah. :smokin

Captain Untouchable

Mar 8th, 2013, 05:50:34 PM

A discussion popped up in the comments on a news site, which I just responded to. I prattle on in comments sections all the time, but this actually seemed like the sort of thing that we'd end up discussing here, so I thought I'd repost it or somesuch.

To paraphrase, the original poster was asking "why have the last three Star Trek movies been about revenge?"

I would imagine it's because of what movie audiences want. Star Trek television can be successful and versatile, but Star Trek movies only seem to succeed if they follow a narrow path.

They often talk about how the odd numbered Star Trek movies are bad and the even numbered ones are good: it's interesting to note that those sets have a lot of similarities.

The Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, and Nemesis featured strong villains whose motivations for what they were doing were fairly personal. For Khan, it was a matter of revenge against Kirk specifically. For General Chang is was broad revenge against the Federation, but also a matter of survival for his species and way of life. For Shinzon, it was the mix of the two: survival for the Remans, and also the "echo" wanting revenge against the "voice".

The Voyage Home and First Contact on the other hand had villains with slightly less personal motivations: the whale probe was completely automated, and while the Borg Queen did have a beef with Picard specifically, the Borg were there assimilating Earth because that's what they do. Both featured the crew going on an adventurous journey (including time travel in both cases). On top of that, all of the even numbered / successful movies featured the Enterprise crew saving the day against a threat that was going to destroy the Earth at the very least, if not the entire Federation.

The odd-numbered movies tell a very different story. The Motion Picture was an attempt at pretty heavy, thinky science fiction, and it tried to explore to some extent what it meant to be human. Similarly, The Search For Spock was a look at humanity and morality: how far will you go to help a friend, the needs of the few, and all that. Once again, The Final Frontier was a little more philosophical, looking at faith and it's impact on humanity, as well as the whole introspective "I need my pain!" angle. Generations was a story about how far one man was willing to go for his personal happiness, and had the "What we leave behind isn't as important as how we've lived," theme running through. And lastly, Insurrection was another morality story about forced relocation, about what's the right/human thing to do, about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, and so on.

Looking at that, it's noteworthy that all of the movies that are thought of as successful put the Earth/galaxy in very real danger, whereas with the exception of The Motion Picture, it was just one nameless/faceless planet that was at risk. Star Trek I did have an evil space cloud on a collision course for Earth, but it didn't ever really convey the sense that the planet was in danger: not the way that the more successful movies did. It's also worth noting that of those successful movies, the only one where the villain didn't at least have a small degree of a personal stake in defeating the Enterprise crew - The Voyage Home - is regarded as one of the sillier / spoofier Star Trek movies.

Looking at the new Abrams movies, it seems like they've distilled out the recipe for a successful Star Trek movie, and have been avoiding the flop pitfalls. In both movies, Earth is in very real danger: in the first it's from a crazy guy who has already blown up one planet, and in the second we know it's from a guy who actually is attacking the Earth. The villains both have close personal relationships with the heroes: with Nero he was the man who killed Kirk's father, and Nero saw Spock as the man who killed his wife; whereas our new villain is "one of us". And as a result of that, we're in a situation where the Enterprise crew is going to have to save the day in quite spectacular fashion.

Why have the last three Star Trek movies been about revenge? Because that's what we (the audience) have demonstrated to the writers/producers that we want.

Am I making something out of nothing here, or have I actually stumbled onto the recipe for making good Star Trek films? If the latter, how do I copyright this and then it to Hollywood?

Dragon

Mar 8th, 2013, 08:37:30 PM

Without a doubt, Insurrection and Nemesis were each trying to copy Wrath of Khan's success. Insurrection with the battle in the nebula and the countdown to doomsday weapon, and Nemesis with the vindictive villain and the... battle in the nebula and the countdown to doomsday weapon plus sacrificial death of a beloved character to save the ship from said doomsday weapon. Of course, in the process they both forgot to tell a story that was remotely compelling or even coherent.

I know you're being facetious, but I don't think a good Trek film has to follow that pattern at all, and it's a mark of a lack of creativity that they keep returning to the same well. I'd also say it's a stretch to say the The Undiscovered Country follows the same pattern. It wasn't about revenge for Chang; he wanted to preserve the culture of war he was comfortable with, and so did his co-conspirators in Starfleet. That movie was about the end of the Cold War, a hopeful message about how decades of hostility can give way to a future of peace. And neither TWoK nor UC, which I think most people agree are the best of the Star Trek movies, put earth or the Federation in mortal danger.

Trek 2009 certainly pays homage to TWoK in a lot of ways, but only superficially in the case of the villain. For all the things I like about the movie, I think Nero is the weak link. He's very nearly a cartoon villain, and many of his actions don't stand up to scrutiny (other than that he's simply insane). But the story isn't about him; he and the Narada (a much more effective villain) are simply the monolithic force of evil that brings Kirk and Spock together to meet their destiny.

Anyway, I certainly agree that the writers and producers have frequently tried to crib off of TWoK's success, much to their own detriment. Here's hoping for something different this time around.

Dasquian Belargic

Mar 9th, 2013, 11:59:59 AM

Droo

Mar 9th, 2013, 12:10:36 PM

Awesome trailer. Needs more Benedict Cumberbatch.

Rutabaga

Mar 9th, 2013, 12:18:07 PM

Awesome trailer. Needs more Benedict Cumberbatch.

Ditto. But that one smolder we do get treated to, with the very Sherlockian coat collar turned up....

:love

Captain Untouchable

Mar 9th, 2013, 01:05:31 PM

In the words of Dash from The Incredibles:

THATWASTOTALLYWICKED!!!!! :eee

Rutabaga

Mar 21st, 2013, 01:23:21 AM

Captain Untouchable

Mar 21st, 2013, 02:05:04 AM

Sweet Jesus! :ohno

Also, Carol Marcus? Damnit, Jim: you gots good taste in ladies.

Rutabaga

Mar 21st, 2013, 02:21:18 AM

I just realized that this is an equal opportunity movie...we ladies have Mr. Cumberbatch to swoon over, while you gentlemen have Alice Eve to occupy your attention.

Everybody's a winner!!!! :eee

(except the Cumbervillain has a greater likelihood of meeting a messy fate at the end of the movie, darn it :()

Captain Untouchable

Mar 21st, 2013, 04:49:05 AM

Considering the role Carol Marcus plays in the larger Star Trek universe... yeah, she's pretty much immortal as far as this movie goes. :uhoh

Cumberbatch is looking even more awesome with each trailer. I'm getting some major Loki vibage from him... in that he's suave, eloquent, and seems like a villain that you actually kinda want to root for.

I am intrigued by seeing Admiral Robocop in that Doctor Strangelove style command room, though. When we first heard that Peter Weller had been cast in the movie, didn't they tell us he was some sort of as yet undisclosed villain? Maybe that was a mistake in the reporting, or more intentional misdirection... I sure as hell hope that the guy who looks like he's the boss of Starfleet isn't actually a villain. :cyduck

Kale

Mar 21st, 2013, 07:13:04 AM

Crusader

Mar 21st, 2013, 07:31:18 AM

Lilaena De'Ville

Mar 21st, 2013, 10:46:08 AM

I've been having trouble sleeping lately. Tonight is no exception. Bummer.

But look what I found when I went to Tumblr.

Holy mother of God.

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yhz4A5BCMAA?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yhz4A5BCMAA?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
:swoon:

Well, how do we know Benedict Cumberbatch is the bad guy? Maybe he's really just trying to destroy these things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76X4k4A4Me8).

(If J. J. Abrams really makes a movie about those things, I will punch him in the face and never stop.)
:dood: :whaa

:cry

Rutabaga

Mar 21st, 2013, 07:40:55 PM

This just might be the movie that will cause me to break my moratorium on 3D movies.

The idea of seeing the Enterprise crash AND Benedict Cumberbatch in 3D is mighty hard to resist.

:mischief

Captain Untouchable

Mar 21st, 2013, 07:49:41 PM

Well, how do we know Benedict Cumberbatch is the bad guy? Maybe he's really just trying to destroy these things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76X4k4A4Me8).

(If J. J. Abrams really makes a movie about those things, I will punch him in the face and never stop.)

I dunno. The critters themselves were rubbish as all hell, but the premise would actually translate extremely well into an Abrams movie. You've got Kirk, the maverick Captain, who on the one hand is insistent on doing the right thing but on the other has this fierce loyalty to Starfleet. Any enemy that forces the Enterprise crew to turn against the Admiralty is bound to create bucketloads of conflict between Kirk and his crew - especially Spock. It would allow Abrams to push the story into the political thriller part of the movie spectrum, and that's something he's done fairly well in the past. And there's potential for even more personal conflict - what if Admiral Pike ends up infected, forcing Kirk to turn against his surrogate father figure? Also, mind controlling alien parasites are something that the franchise has already re-introduced to audiences during the first movie, so the amount of exposition would be minimal.

Part of me really hopes that this is what's going on... or at least some variation of "Cumberbatch isn't actually a villain". If nothing else, I really want to see Cumberbatch end up in a proper Starfleet uniform at the helm of the Enterprise when the movie finishes. :ohno

Rutabaga

Mar 24th, 2013, 08:57:38 AM

Star Trek Into Darkness in Lego form!

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7JGT0yxxMw?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7JGT0yxxMw?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Droo

Apr 16th, 2013, 01:23:23 PM

5ec_rPApKCA

Oh my!

Crusader

Apr 16th, 2013, 02:58:25 PM

OMG this looks pretty awesome!

Lilaena De'Ville

Apr 16th, 2013, 03:56:05 PM

I am so excited for this movie it's ridiculous. I have to wait to see it after I run my half marathon on the 19th (it's my reward for surviving), but IT WILL BE SO WORTH IT.

Rutabaga

Apr 16th, 2013, 07:12:33 PM

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/Rutabaga64/animated%20gifs/Miscellaneous/fangirlscreaming_zpsf4ec92ad.gif (http://s207.photobucket.com/user/Rutabaga64/media/animated%20gifs/Miscellaneous/fangirlscreaming_zpsf4ec92ad.gif.html)

1 month from tomorrow here in the US. 1 long month.

I've taken May 17th off from work, so I'll be seeing it first show opening day.

BTW, after seeing the earlier trailers, I abandoned the idea of the Cumbervillain being Gary Mitchell a while ago. Upon further examination, I think we are indeed looking at the reimagined Khan. Regardless of who exactly he turns out to be, though, whoever is sitting anywhere near me in the theater is going to have to be prepared for hearing me whine like a little puppy every time he's on the screen.

Captain Untouchable

Apr 28th, 2013, 04:22:10 PM

Oh shit, they're being chased by a Klingon ship and it's sexy as all hell. :ohno

J-9hhoTNaqU

Rutabaga

Apr 29th, 2013, 08:22:44 AM

*swoon*

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxR8n4f8s88?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxR8n4f8s88?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Droo

Apr 29th, 2013, 03:40:45 PM

Benedict Cumberbatch is the man. That's all there is to it.

Rutabaga

Apr 29th, 2013, 06:02:42 PM

He is indeed.

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/Rutabaga64/animated%20gifs/Cumberbatched/llap_zps738e76d8.gif (http://s207.photobucket.com/user/Rutabaga64/media/animated%20gifs/Cumberbatched/llap_zps738e76d8.gif.html)

Captain Untouchable

Apr 29th, 2013, 06:53:45 PM

Thought that just occurred to me while watching BC be all gravitas and growly in that clip: "Holy shit, that is how Smaug is going to sound."

:ohno

Cirrsseeto Quez

Apr 29th, 2013, 08:59:56 PM

Considering the role Carol Marcus plays in the larger Star Trek universe... yeah, she's pretty much immortal as far as this movie goes. :uhoh

Alternate universe. Nothing sacred.

Captain Untouchable

Apr 30th, 2013, 10:18:26 AM

Considering the role Carol Marcus plays in the larger Star Trek universe... yeah, she's pretty much immortal as far as this movie goes. :uhoh

Alternate universe. Nothing sacred.

Sure, provided that JJ Abrams can afford enough security to protect him from a hordes of raging Trek fans with pitchforks for the rest of his life. :uhoh

Edit:

io9 has an exclusive little interview-plus-clips featurette thing (http://io9.com/scotty-hits-the-bottle-in-a-brand-new-star-trek-2-featu-485333054), which has some stuff of Simon Pegg being awesome again.

Edit again:

Just found this - Benedict Cumberbatch talking about Uhura. I'm not sure if it's dialogue for the movie, or if they just got BC to record the most amazing character summaries ever. All I know is that I need audio books recorded by that man. :ohno

cfn7we2m5V8

Peter McCoy

May 10th, 2013, 08:57:28 PM

Went to see this on Thursday with Droo as well as my little sister. I thought it was bloody fantastic!

Crusader

May 11th, 2013, 09:51:37 AM

I really think I will like Star Wars Episode 7.

Rutabaga

May 13th, 2013, 11:07:18 AM

We're within striking distance of the movie premiering here in the US...a few days ago, Paramount moved the opening date from May 17th to May 16th. I'd already asked for the 17th off from work about 6 weeks ago, so I'll be seeing it at the first show on that date.

Everything I've heard about it so far gives me great hope that I'm going to have one hell of a time. I've also managed to avoid major spoilers so far, from what I can tell.

All I know is that I need audio books recorded by that man. :ohno

If you haven't checked iTunes or Audible yet, he has done some audiobooks. For people like me, the best one is Casanova's autobiography, which is almost like soft-core porn at points. (Hearing Benedict purr the word "dildo" is especially delightful.) Plus there's one Sherlock Holmes audiobook, and he's also read some Ngaio Marsh mysteries.

If they made made an audiobook of him reading the dictionary, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. :love

Jo Holloway

May 13th, 2013, 11:17:57 AM

I have to wait until Sunday night at the earliest to watch it. ^_^;

Captain Untouchable

May 14th, 2013, 01:25:30 AM

I have to wait until Sunday night at the earliest to watch it. ^_^;

At least you get to go. By the time I've got enough mobility to trek to my nearest cinema, they'll have stopped showing it. I'm not even sure I'll be able to make it to Man of Steel, and that doesn't come out for another month.

So yeah, waiting until Sunday beats waiting for the DVD. ;)

Rutabaga

May 14th, 2013, 09:17:13 PM

I just checked the movie's score at Rotten Tomatoes.

88 freakin' percent.

:eek :dance :swoon:

Kale

May 16th, 2013, 05:41:05 PM

Just saw it with my mom, dad, and brother. I have to say, after growing up with The Next Generation, devotedly following Deep Space Nine, growing gradually more frustrated with Voyager, and overwhelmingly going "meh" at Enterprise, it's really special to share in a great new Star Trek experience with my family!

Let's start with the good, and there's a lot of it. Visuals continue to be stupendous. I love the retro-futuristic styling the art department has created, and this movie treats us to some fantastic new locales that are as diverse as they are gorgeous. I saw the movie in 2D, but I'd actually like to try seeing it in 3D as well just to ramp up the eye candy - I have a feeling it'll be worth it.

Next, the script and performances. The dialogue is taut and clever, and the characters sparkle throughout. Karl Urban is still brilliant as McCoy and manages to steal every scene he's in. Cumberbatch's villain is formidable and captivating and fully lives up to his billing. But I found myself most surprised by the depth added to Kirk through the course of this story. Chris Pine made me like the character a lot more in this installment - not that I disliked him in Star Trek 2009, but it never felt to me like he really earned the captain's chair. That changes in this film.

My primary complaint is that by the end the movie feels like something slightly less than the sum of its parts. The climax is predictable and somehow smaller than the events leading up to it, while a seemingly larger and more monumental conflict goes unresolved. In fact, a lot of storytelling capital built in the first one and a half hours is left in limbo in favor of a fairly by-the-numbers showdown.

I'll probably chip in with more specifics later on as we get more discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say, this movie shows Abrams's weaknesses as well as his strengths - don't ask him for airtight plot, or you'll be disappointed - but it's an incredibly enjoyable ride with plenty more references that'll make longtime Trek fans smile. It's a case where what I love about a movie makes me willing to forgive its flaws and enjoy it anyway, because what it does well, it does brilliantly.

Captain Untouchable

May 17th, 2013, 09:31:47 AM

Managed to see this after all.

I laughed. I cried. At times I literally flailed and punched the air in fanboyish glee. There were moments I saw coming, particularly towards the ending: but that only filled me with more dread and more hope. There were a lot of moments that totally surprised me, and a fair number of my predictions were lightyears wide of the mark. There were a lot of familiar themes and parallels, as well as things being flipped on their head - even more so than in the first movie - and I thoroughly enjoyed that. Also, the characters in this - not just their individual portrayals, but also the interactions between them - were superb. After two movies, we already have a much deeper, more complex, and more nuanced understanding of the characters and the crew than the The Original Series ever managed to provide.

All I'll say regarding Andrew's primary complaint is that most of the original Star Trek movies were a continuous story. I personally didn't feel that the unanswered questions detracted from anything, and I'd speculate that any plot points that were left in limbo or unresolved may well have been left that way deliberately, so that Star Trek 3 can build on them. Also, since Star Wars pretty much rules out JJ Abrams' availability being a factor in when the next movie gets made (ie. he won't be directing it), it sounds like we can expect a much shorter interval before the next instalment.

Kale

May 17th, 2013, 11:52:06 AM

After some discussion, I've got my thoughts more in order here. Major huge devastating spoilers follow, you guys!

I feel like Abrams lost sight of the fact that the climax of a movie is not simply the big action sequence at the end that ends the conflict. It should also be the focal point of the themes developed throughout the movie. No, not everything has to be fully resolved, but nothing can be simply forgotten.

One loose thread people are complaining about is Kirk's actions on Kronos, which Admiral Marcus rightly says could very well cause a war. Once the focus shifts to stopping the Admiral, the Klingons are never mentioned again. I could potentially accept this as sequel bait, though I have problems with that as well - more on that later.

A bigger problem in the context of this movie is that the Admiral's campaign to turn Starfleet into a war machine is never mentioned again after his death. This represents an existential threat to the Federation's very soul, far more so than anything Khan does in the film. It doesn't die with Marcus - the construction of the Vengeance had to be an enormous project consuming incredible resources. Those elements, including Section 31, are still out there within the Federation, seemingly forgotten. Again, it could be sequel bait, but how much of this movie's central plot points can we commit to a hypothetical sequel?

When the movie separates Khan from these sweeping, galactic plot threads, the conflict becomes exponentially smaller, but it lacks the intimate focus and obsession that made The Wrath of Khan so compelling. Kirk has given up his vendetta against Khan for the greater good, and Spock's rage-bender at the end is horribly contrived. It's very hard to say Khan was the one to kill Kirk when the Enterprise had already been crippled by Admiral Marcus.

Spock beaming over the torpedoes and detonating them was, admittedly, a stroke of genius, and a great callback to Kirk's "Here it comes" from Wrath of Khan. The prospect of Khan enraged by the belief that all his people have been killed, with nothing to restrain his retribution, is pretty terrifying. But the crew is so focused on saving Kirk that no attention is paid to the horrible destruction Khan wreaked by crashing the Vengeance into San Francisco. It's disaster porn without consequence. Khan has essentially won - he's accomplished his revenge and murdered thousands - but all the heroes seem to care about is saving Kirk.

So, here's my proposed vision of the ending. I would much rather have seen more made of the Admiral's plot, and the threat it presents to Starfleet's role in the galaxy. I loved the idea that he turned to Khan specifically because he needed 20th-century savagery to realize his goals, and I could very easily see Khan usurping the Admiral's role in the plot to recreate the Federation in his own image.

So rather than bringing the conflict back to earth, let Khan take the Vengeance, with his crew, back to the Neutral Zone to start the war with the Klingons that the Admiral wanted, and force the Enterprise to chase after him and stop him. The stakes are so much clearer now, the threat much better realized, and Khan far more effective and menacing as a tyrant and warlord. And what's more, with more than the barest lip service given to Section 31 and Klingon hostilities, we end in a much better position to start the Enterprise's five-year mission into deep space.

And now we come to my objection to pushing all this into a possible sequel. Frankly, I don't want the next movie to be about uncovering corruption in the Federation or about war with the Klingons. What I want to see is the Enterprise's mission into deep space. I want to see them uncover something wonderful and terrifying, something that makes the galaxy seem vast and mysterious, not a tightly packed star cluster where you can jump from earth to Kronos in a matter of hours. I want the Doomsday Machine, the First Federation, the Tholians, the Guardian of Forever. I want to see the crew exploring. I loved the opening sequence of the movie because it was a believable original Star Trek adventure, and it was brilliant. Don't get me wrong, I love the vision of the Federation that Abrams has developed. But if we never get out of the center of civilized space, never deal with anything but threats of war and military actions, then it's not really Star Trek, is it? It's simply Star Wars without lightsabers.

This concludes my rant. Please understand I'm being so hard on the movie not because I disliked it, but because I loved so much of it, and I felt that it could have been much more. I will eagerly go see it again, probably more than once, and I will continue to enjoy this captivating version of the crew and the spectacular art design. Meanwhile I'll continue to develop my own head-canon version of how things really went down at the end. :)

Rutabaga

May 17th, 2013, 02:55:09 PM

I loved it. Just loved it. I really can't be any more coherent than that right now. :)

Captain Untouchable

May 17th, 2013, 04:02:03 PM

@Andrew:

Unlike most Star Trek fans, I don't regard The Wrath of Khan with any kind of reverence: it may be iconic and memorable, but it is a bad movie with an iffy plot.

Worse, Khan is a bad villain: or at least, he's a bad nemesis. The problem with Khan is that for all his talk of being superior, he doesn't deliver the goods. He claims to have a superior intellect, but he is outsmarted by vertical movement and by saying days instead of hours. His arrogance and emotions consistently cloud his judgement, and ultimately prove to be his downfall. Khan has this deeply personal rage against Kirk (mostly because of his wife dying, which wasn't Kirk's fault but Khan's "superior intellect" couldn't seem to grasp that), but all Kirk has to go on is Khan getting the upper hand a couple of times, and maybe killing a couple of people: the nemesis relationship doesn't make sense. And ultimately, for all his claims of being superior, it's the fact that Khan represents the worst of humanity - emotions and arrogance - that proves to be his downfall. Khan only has any success at all because of a string of coincidences and flukes.

Harrison was a drastic improvement on that. As was the theme with most of the movie (I'll get onto that later), the roles were reversed. Instead of Khan being the one with the personal vendetta, it was Kirk who let his emotions dictate his actions: much more in keeping with the characters. Not only did Harrison commit acts of terror, he killed Kirk's pseudo-father. Kirk got to represent the worst of humanity - just like he did in both of the new movies - while Harrison got to show us that he was better, outsmarting the crew (and Section 31) several times, and then beating the living shit out of Kirk. Instead of being outsmarted by a normal man, it took the superior intellect of a Vulcan (with a little insider information from a parallel timeline) to outsmart him, and it took superior Vulcan strength married by blinding rage to beat him in an actual fight. Harrison was a better Khan than the original Khan was.

It's not just Khan and Kirk that had their roles reversed: the same happened with Kirk and Spock. As they both put it, the idea that "It's what you would have done" governed much of their actions, and I think it perfectly explains Spock's "contrived" bender. The idea of Spock embracing his human side started right at the beginning: Kirk directly appealed to it at one point. We saw Spock struggling to understand why Kirk risked everything to come back for him, and then as Kirk died he finally got it: "Because you're my friend." Confronted with the death of his best friend, unable to push aside his emotions because of it, and already in a What Would Kirk Do mindset, having Spock go on an emotion-fuelled quest for revenge makes perfect sense to me. It's also significant that it took Uhura, the only other meaningful emotional connection that Spock has, to ultimately get through to him.

I will concede that the Vengeance crashing into San Francisco was disaster porn to some degree: but just like the scene from Nemesis where the the Enterprise rams the Scimitar, it also set the stage for the showdown between Spock/Data and Khan/Shinzon. Personally I would have added a five-minute scene where Spock is debriefed, just to draw a line under the San Fran casualties and to perhaps lead into Kirk being alive a little better... but I think that's a relatively small niggle on the face of things.

As for the sequel, you act like the Five Year Mission, conflicts with the Klingons, and the return of Section 31 are mutually exclusive as plot points. On the contrary, I would argue that they go hand in hand perfectly. For starters, the Five Year Mission is the first of it's kind; Section 31 may have lost their headquarters and their battleship, but as you point out they have more resources, and getting an agent aboard the Enterprise for that iconic mission is well within the scope of their abilities. The Klingons meanwhile were the main recurring antagonist for the Enterprise crew during their Five Year Mission, and they've already been painted as expansionist: the Enterprise crossing paths with them makes plenty of sense for a 5YM movie, and having the incident on Kronos/Qo'noS as a Cuban Missile Crisis type event as part of an ongoing Klingon Civil War (which was the state of affairs during The Original Series)... it falls into place. Also, it's worth noting that The Undiscovered Country, which heavily features the Klingons and a much better Kirk nemesis (General Chang) also features a Federation conspiracy that the Star Trek novels certainly think is tied to Section 31. A slightly younger Chang, Cold War tensions with the Klingons, and a Starfleet that the Enterprise can't entirely trust because they don't know who is in on the conspiracy sounds like the makings of a great movie... perhaps an opening scene on Organa, since the Organian Treaty is one of the most important points in Kirk's career?

I won't address your proposed ending, since I think that's a dangerous tangent to wander down (an alternate, alternate timeline? :uhoh)... but honestly, I don't think the ending needs fixing. I was perfectly happy with what happened, the way that I personally interpreted it.

Kale

May 17th, 2013, 05:33:44 PM

@Jace:

Oh, I thoroughly enjoyed the role reversals, as well as the delightful reversal of Kirk and Khan working together to stop the Vengeance. I thought the scene between Kirk and Spock at the warp core was one of the best-written in the entire movie, allowing for a few brief spots of plagiarism homage. And I understood the reasons for sending Spock mano-a-mano against Khan at the very end. But I felt it was sloppily handled, and for the crew to focus all their efforts on revenge/saving Kirk in the midst of the destruction wrought on San Francisco seems horribly selfish and out of character.

Anyway, enough on that, since we can agree to disagree. What I want to know is, considering the Admiral's slight Texas drawl, where did Carol Marcus get her English accent? ;)

And at the risk of alternating alternate timelines, I had the mental image of the Enterprise defeating the Vengeance at great cost on the edge of Klingon space, only to be left drifting as a dozen Klingon battlecruisers descend on them... forcing Kirk to find a new solution to the Kobayashi Maru scenario! :ohno

Captain Untouchable

May 17th, 2013, 06:22:44 PM

@Andrew:

I would argue that chasing Khan was the only thing the Enterprise could have done in that situation.

It's easy to forget that Earth is a planet inhabited by billions of people. The instant the Vengeance hit the ground, all eyes would be on San Francisco. The city's emergency services, not to mention those from neighbouring cities, relief efforts from Starfleet facilities elsewhere in the world, and so on... all of that would leap into action. Meanwhile, the Enterprise is shot to hell and barely keeping itself aloft; they struggled to beam down a couple of people, let alone emergency responders. Not only do they not need to act (because Earth is already handling it), they aren't actually capable of helping.

However, what they can do is hunt down Khan, the man responsible. Spock may have been motivated by revenge, but catching Khan - and "neutralising" him if necessary - is a pretty logical thing to do in that scenario. McCoy meanwhile acts independently, out of a mix of medical obligation and the desire to stop his friend from being dead. He isn't selfishly ignoring San Francisco, because he's down in sickbay without a damned clue of what just went down: all he can do is try to save the patient that's in front of him, like any good doctor would.

Were they being selfish? Maybe... but I wouldn't call it out of character.

I'll admit though, there is one thing that does bug me. That ship was clearly this timeline's sexed-up version of the Excelsior. The size, the shape, the speed... hell, they even stated that she was a transwarp ship. Why then did you have to go and give it a shitty name like Vengeance, when Excelsior is a bajillion times cooler? :mad

Darth Turbogeek

May 18th, 2013, 12:53:27 AM

Okay, I thought 2009 Star Trek was a good, even well done pop corn flick that was pretty forgettable. Which to a person who pretty much distains Trek is I think actually about as good as it was going to get - so I was hoping for at least the same.

I got it.

Again, it's forgettable but the truth is, it's a good, even very good pop corn flick that is worth the money. I'm not going to be chewing over the nuances for hours like Iron Man3 because the movie didnt make me notice or care. I'm not going to be bothered watching again but if this sounds like damning with faint praise... no it's not. It's just to a non Trekkie not deeply compelling but it is a good movie.

Captain Untouchable

May 19th, 2013, 06:34:53 PM

I've just been part of a discussion about Alice Eve's character.

The main crux of the discussion was that Carol Marcus is only there as a token love interest for Kirk, she got abducted and needed to be rescued, and then during that rescue she screamed like a girl. People are calling her a terrible character, an obligatory damsel in distress, and while I can understand where they're coming from, I disagree.

When we first see Carol, she's lying about her identity and presents Kirk with fake documents in order to get aboard the Enterprise because she's smart enough to be suspicious of what her father is up to, and has a strong enough sense of morality to want to be in a position to intervene if necessary. She does most of the flirting, and while Kirk certainly gives her an "I'm attracted" look, he seems most impressed by her qualifications and academic achievements... and by the fact that her being there seems to irk Spock. We do have an obligatory underwear shot (it's worth bearing in mind that we saw Uhura in her underwear in the first movie, and we've seen Kirk in the same state of undress in both films), but instead of it being a flirtatious / seduction scene, she tells him off for looking; and it takes place in the middle of her offering to shuttle down to a planet with the Star Trek equivalent of a pretty sizeable nuke, risking her own life in order to protect the crew. McCoy flirts throughout the torpedo scene, and she completely ignores it.

Being kidnapped by her father is a little bit of a damsel moment, but her rescue isn't actually what motivates Kirk to act. They have much bigger fish to fry, and instead of swooping in to rescue the damsel Kirk instead gets the living shit beaten out of her. Yes, she freaks out and screams: but only after watching Khan crush her father's head until it exploded, with his bare hands. Even Kirk seems pretty rattled by this, in between the beatings. It's also worth noting that despite the fact that she gets injured by Khan herself, as soon as she's back on the ship she gets straight on with her duties without any muss or fuss: she wasn't "struggling to cope" when she was helping McCoy, she was just being a professional, as one might expect.

She's certainly a love interest / damsel in distress kind of character... but personally I thought she was a better-than-usual example of that. That said, I'm pretty terrible when it comes to conceiving female characters... did you guys think she was bad / good / okay?

Rutabaga

May 19th, 2013, 08:50:51 PM

I thought she was okay, I didn't have a major problem with her. Except for trying to figure out where her English accent came from if her father was American. Unless he was out in space so much that she spent more time with her mother, I dunno. It's a nitpick, ultimately.

But yeah, Carol isn't there just as window dressing. And I can't blame her for doing that screaming while on the Vengeance. Even though she'd slapped her father and told him she was ashamed to be his daughter, it doesn't mean she would have enjoyed seeing his skull crushed like an egg by Khan. Plus Khan shattered her leg with a single kick, and that obviously wasn't a fun thing to experience either.

I saw the movie for a second time today and actually enjoyed it more than I did the first time. I know I'm going to be accused of being biased (Jace in particular really has experience with my obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch since he follows me on Tumblr ;)), but Khan was the best part of the movie for me. I loved, and still love, Ricardo Montalban's original portrayal of Khan, but that was a Khan who had become warped and twisted by his years on Ceti Alpha V, especially after losing his wife. He was ultimately defeated a little too easily, when all was said and done. But this Khan is something much, much different. Much more threatening, much more unpredictable, much more adept at manipulation and extreme ruthlessness.

I was glad I'd been able to avoid major spoilers prior to seeing the movie for the first time on Friday, because I found Khan's arc to be really interesting. I went from yeah, he's a bad guy to wait, he's done terrible things but maybe he isn't completely bad to oh shit, he really is a bad guy and needs to be stopped throughout the movie. When all was said and done, this iteration of Khan was not a common one dimensional bad buy with the subtance of a piece of tissue paper. He was a step above what we see too often, and he was brought to very memorable and effective life by BC.

I also really have to hand it to Chris Pine...I agree that he finally earned the captain's chair in this one. He proved it in the moment when he tried to save the crew before the Vengeance was going to destroy the Enterprise, and of course also in the beautiful role reversal scene in the engine room. Chris Pine has totally made this role his own. And Zachary Quinto was excellent as usual.

It wasn't perfect--I do agree that the movie ends somewhat abruptly--but it really, really worked for me. I doubt I'm going to stop at 2 viewings, because I'm such a pathetic fangirl. :mischief

I'm also wondering if there will be any chance for an Oscar nom for the visual effects. They were all spectacular, especially the fall of the Enterprise and the crash of the Vengeance.

Mr E Nygma

May 21st, 2013, 09:02:03 PM

She's certainly a love interest / damsel in distress kind of character... but personally I thought she was a better-than-usual example of that. That said, I'm pretty terrible when it comes to conceiving female characters... did you guys think she was bad / good / okay?

I think the idea had potential that it didn't live up to. To be frank, her character was basically a plot device to hang the secret of the torpedo-cryotubes on. Once that moment was past, her accomplishments and contributions were pretty minimal.

What I would've liked to see is her coming up with the idea to pull the cryotube-sicles out of the torpedoes and making it happen independently, thus giving Spock a surprise weapon at his disposal and hostages in the event that his initial strategy failed. And when it failed, I would've liked to see Sulu and Uhura step in and bargain for an exchange, which fails because they are not Spock. That can chain into the reactor room scene (and the disaster porn montage if you really have to have one.)

Rutabaga

May 22nd, 2013, 08:21:31 PM

So they kept the moment of Alice Eve in her Starfleet undies for the fanboys yet left this fangirl-hysteria-inducing moment on the cutting room floor... :cry

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/Rutabaga64/animated%20gifs/Cumberbatched/khandeletedscenedammit_zps0bf145f9.gif (http://s207.photobucket.com/user/Rutabaga64/media/animated%20gifs/Cumberbatched/khandeletedscenedammit_zps0bf145f9.gif.html)

Well, hopefully it will be on the DVD extras. Plus I have to admit that, if it had been left in the movie, some of us might have injured ourselves attempting to run head first into the screen. :mischief

Lilaena De'Ville

May 23rd, 2013, 09:18:49 AM

I don't have much that is coherent to add to the discussion - I thought that this was a really good movie and a really good Star Trek movie. Rather than try to stay spoiler friendly I'm just going to tag all of this just in case.

The identity of Benedict's character was a surprise but not a surprise, more of an 'of course!' moment. I had avoided all talk of who he was going to be, and of course Khan was a front runner in rumor from the beginning. I thought they did justice by the Khan character, probably more so than in the original movie, like you said Jace.

It has been a long time since I've seen The Wrath of Khan, all I really remember is him sticking horribly crawly things into people's ears to control them, so we'll probably rewatch that soon. BUT anyway. I really enjoyed the movie and as mentioned the visual effects were really, really great.

The fight between Spock and Khan on the barge or whatever that was, for example, was just incredible for how real it looked. I couldn't help but be reminded of the similar scene in Attack of the Clones in Coruscant and how MUCH BETTER this was. Can't wait for JJ Star Wars, for serious. I'm sure part of it is just technology advancing, but still. STILL.

I loved the bit on Kronos, even if it became a semi-dropped storyline. I figure that the danger was the Enterprise being discovered by the Klingons, and it wasn't. The Klingons therefore have no proof that the team was from the Federation (not that wars haven't been started for less of course). I would have liked to have seen more of them without their helmets on, but they probably had to reel in the budget somewhere. I liked that it was visually consistent with the deleted scenes from the 2009 movie, and the Klingons were badass. Khan was just badasser, of course. :swoon:

The role reversal of Spock and Kirk from TWoK was perfect. I was a little confused as to why Alternate Future Spock was helping Spock with spoilers, but I think he justified it by knowing that he had to die to stop Khan originally and the odds of Khan trying the whole Genesis planet thing and being resurrected was infinitesimally small. And his alternate's life was important due to all the future things he needed to be present for. Spock tapping into his human half was set up really well from the beginning of the movie, and Kirk maturing into realizing how to be a captain and lead and make the tough choices was done really well too.

Loved it. Also I know there are many who are vocal detractors of the 3D format but I un-apologetically love it when done well, and in Star Trek Into Darkness it was done really well. It lends a terrific depth to the city scenes and didn't ever stand out as something shoehorned in. It was just very beautifully executed.

And lastly, I love Scotty. Star of the movie for me. :swoon:

Cirrsseeto Quez

May 25th, 2013, 07:15:35 PM

Finally saw it.

The Khan twist caught me by complete surprise. Well done! I'm a bit uneasy at white-facing the role, but I guess I'll give it the benefit of the doubt due to space nazis or whatever.

I love the duality of changing positions of inside / outside the glass with Kirk and Spock in relation to Wrath of Khan. I'd figured out they'd use Khan's blood as an out long before, so I knew Kirk was gonna live. Still, I absolutely love seeing Kirk actually having to come to grips with the no-winner, and having to actually confront death. The fear he expressed is exactly how I imagine someone so arrogant and cocksure to assume it would never be them. That was poignant. Spock screaming KHAAAAN was silly, but I'll allow it I guess.

Also why the hell is Scotty drinking a bomber of budweiser. Have some standards, you bastard!

Also Mickey from Doctor Who was in this! Too bad he died and all, but still glad to see him!

Cirrsseeto Quez

May 25th, 2013, 07:19:29 PM

Also did the enterprise crew inadvertently cause a tribble outbreak on earth? :uhoh

That could be the premise for the next movie!!!

Captain Untouchable

May 25th, 2013, 07:33:30 PM

I absolutely love seeing Kirk actually having to come to grips with the no-winner, and having to actually confront death. The fear he expressed is exactly how I imagine someone so arrogant and cocksure to assume it would never be them. That was poignant.

Hold still, Mr Nail. Charley here is going to whack you squarely on the head.

That said, the way he handled this no-win scenario says a lot about New Kirk, versus Old Kirk. In The Wrath of Khan, the lesson was that "sometimes you don't win, and someone you care about dies". That message gets reinforced in The Search For Spock, because though Kirk tries to cheat - again - and get his lost friend back, he ends up losing his son in the process. New Kirk however resolved the no-win in the same way that Thor his father did: choosing to sacrifice himself, rather than letting anyone else die on his behalf. A lot of episodes of The Original Series focus on the deaths of people under Kirk's command: his own death is something that only Generations tackled. Also, it ran through my head that Generations Kirk was wrong: he told Picard that "I've always known I'd die alone;" but in Into Darkness, his best friend in all the multiverse was there with him.

I hope that we get to see Kirk and Carol's relationship explored further, and I really hope Kirk becomes a dad. I think that has the potential to be a very different Kirk: the fact that he himself grew up without a father - and the fact that Carol has lost her father - might change the whole promising to stay away thing. This New Kirk is always so willing to risk his own life: but given that George Kirk made the ultimate sacrifice and left him fatherless, he might not be so willing to risk forcing his son to live the same life.